|
Author
|
Topic: Transitional fossils not proof of evolution?
|
Chuteleach
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 192 of 223 (341043)
08-18-2006 10:19 AM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by Alasdair
03-02-2006 12:55 PM
|
|
never mind Edited by Chuteleach, : I see someone already said what i was going to. (fossils being alive)
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by Alasdair, posted 03-02-2006 12:55 PM | | Alasdair has not replied |
|
Chuteleach
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 193 of 223 (341044)
08-18-2006 10:31 AM
|
Reply to: Message 189 by NosyNed
07-19-2006 9:46 PM
|
|
Re: That which has not evolved.
Ok, how would a creature that lived several million years ago have no random genetic changes?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 189 by NosyNed, posted 07-19-2006 9:46 PM | | NosyNed has not replied |
|
Chuteleach
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 196 of 223 (341077)
08-18-2006 1:09 PM
|
Reply to: Message 194 by Percy
08-18-2006 10:45 AM
|
|
Re: That which has not evolved.
I'm sorry, I wasn't really speaking of the Coelacanth. There are 1000's of discovered animals, that were once thought to be extinct quite some time ago that do not have any observable changes, many of them being millions of years old. It seems illogical to think that all these observable changes supposedly occured from a common ancestor to homo sapiens in a shorter time than these million year old animals, such as Limulus polyphemus(horseshoe crab)
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 194 by Percy, posted 08-18-2006 10:45 AM | | Percy has replied |
|
Chuteleach
Inactive Member
|
Re: That which has not evolved.
No, i think you don't understand what i'm saying. We have lots of fossils of horseshoe crabs, and we have live ones that match the fossils. Now sure, there could be changes in the DNA, but humans look different than their supposed ancestors. (according to the theory of evolution) Now, the time between humans and their ancestors is much shorter than the time between the million year old horseshoe crab, and the ones alive today. Wouldn't you think they would have some sort of OBSERVABLE change that we wouldn't need DNA testing to see? Thats the only way evolutionists use fossils as "transitional evidence" anyways. Edited by Chuteleach, : Added information
|
Chuteleach
Inactive Member
|
Re: That which has not evolved.
They have found horseshoe crabs that have exactly the same phenotype
|
Chuteleach
Inactive Member
|
Re: That which has not evolved.
it's funny you discredit it because the soft part wouldn't be preserved, how do scientists figure anything about fossils if all they see is the hard parts.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 206 by Chiroptera, posted 08-18-2006 10:33 PM | | Chiroptera has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 211 by Belfry, posted 08-19-2006 9:42 PM | | Chuteleach has replied |
|
Chuteleach
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 212 of 223 (341553)
08-19-2006 10:09 PM
|
Reply to: Message 211 by Belfry
08-19-2006 9:42 PM
|
|
Re: That which has not evolved.
Yes, I understand this is a science forum, but also, you have no scientific proof that life can come from non-living matter.
Living Fossils: Ferns and Crabs
| Answers in Genesis
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 211 by Belfry, posted 08-19-2006 9:42 PM | | Belfry has replied |
|
Chuteleach
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 216 of 223 (341803)
08-20-2006 9:30 PM
|
Reply to: Message 213 by Belfry
08-19-2006 10:45 PM
|
|
Re: That which has not evolved.
yes because i'm sure you can prove which sources are credible and which arn't. I don't care if just giving a link is frowned upon or not, use a little common sense it goes a long way. the middle right is a living Limulus the bottom right is a fossilized Limulus how does that not support my claim?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 213 by Belfry, posted 08-19-2006 10:45 PM | | Belfry has replied |
|
Chuteleach
Inactive Member
|
Re: Xiphosurans
no, the genus is Limulus. I double checked. Atlantic horseshoe crab - Wikipedia
|
™ Version 4.2